That’s not kernel policy but LF guidance. From the kernel’s point of view patches still have a high bar to pass to get merged and I don’t think we have enough data yet to see if LLM based submissions to the kernel have a higher or lower error rate than humans.
I certainly feel the uptick in LLM reports though - one of the projects I’m working on is seeing a deluge of them at the moment.
The kernel policy seems to be what I think it is, since LLM slop patches have been merged.
I find it slightly contradictory to delete code due to hidden bugs on the one end, then insert LLM code at the other rather than hand-craft the code to avoid hidden bugs better.
I’m saying if their policy is to accept AI code, which the link seems to demonstrate that it is, the rate of future hidden errors in the kernel code is likely going to go up. This is what all the studies are saying, including those involving competent coders.
That’s not kernel policy but LF guidance. From the kernel’s point of view patches still have a high bar to pass to get merged and I don’t think we have enough data yet to see if LLM based submissions to the kernel have a higher or lower error rate than humans.
I certainly feel the uptick in LLM reports though - one of the projects I’m working on is seeing a deluge of them at the moment.
The kernel policy seems to be what I think it is, since LLM slop patches have been merged.
I find it slightly contradictory to delete code due to hidden bugs on the one end, then insert LLM code at the other rather than hand-craft the code to avoid hidden bugs better.
Are you saying that AI slop is bad in those (counts) 4 removed lines of code?
I’m saying if their policy is to accept AI code, which the link seems to demonstrate that it is, the rate of future hidden errors in the kernel code is likely going to go up. This is what all the studies are saying, including those involving competent coders.
Hm… How well does FreeBSD run games? It still uses WINE and Proton, right?